The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-02-02
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Supreme Court.

Hon. Byron e. Elliott, Chief-iustice.
The following opinions were rendered Feb l:
INJUNcTIoN-sTREET ASSESSMENT.
12025. Joseph Bolfe ct al. vs. Agatha Lammes
ct al. Tippecanoe G. c. Affirmed. Elliott.
Z. 1.-The question as to whether the yeas ana
for a street improvement cannot be presented by
a complaint for injunction unless the suit is
brought before the work is done t. The cues
ton as to whether the estimate was made for
the proper amount cannot be put in issue by
suit for an injunction. H. A mere mistake IN
describing the property cannot be tried by in
junction. These questions can only be tried on
appeal "a The complaint AYERS that the proper
ty does not abut on South street. and as that was
the street improved, the averment makes the
complaint good. H. The appellee's ancestor
appealed from the precept and judgement was
rendered against him. All questions relative to
the validity of the assessment were before the
court and are conclusively settled. If appellants
were not satisfied by the judgment. their rem
edy was by appeal. TO- Judgment In favor or
the contractor settles the question as to the va
iidty of the estimate and the suf6ciency of the
description. Estoppels by judgment are mutual
forcement of decree rendered on an appeal
from precept on the ground that the estimate
was invalid because the property was not prop
erly described.
PETITION FOR DRAIN-sUFFICIENCY.
1885 John E. Collins VS.. Thomas Rupe.
Jay {. c. Affirmed. Mitchell, IA petition
for drain which gives the number of the town
snip in which the public highway benefited is
situated, and which states that the proposed
work will improve the public health, and that 1t
will be of public utility, is sufficient without
giving the name of the civil township in which
the public highway is situate.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
1887 l., B. & w. Railway Company vs.
Charles Sawyer Warren G. c. Reversed
Niblack, J.-Action for damages for killing a
horse. Instructions to the effect that if the
horse got on the track at place where the com
PENDANT was not required to fence these and was
not liable, were enormously refused, there
being evidence to which they were applicable
INSANE Observation-Disclosures
INNOCENT THIRD PERSON.
1880 Auretius B. Hull VS.. Clark South,
guardian. Tppecanoe c. G. Affirmed. Zol-
! lars, J.-In a suit wherein guardian seeks to
have a deed of his insane ward set aside. it was
not q condition precedent that she had disaf-
frmed; and as the guardian not appointed
until after the suit WAS brought, he could not
have disafirmed. Filing an answer is a sufficient
disafirmer e. Where a deed was made by a
person of unsourd mind, but who had not been
| declared insane, to party without considera-
| ton, and the grantee mortgaged the land to one
who acted upon the faith of the public records
| of deeds and mortgages and without knowl-
edge Of the fact that the grantor was of unsound
| mind, and who, in GOOD faith, furnished the
money and accepted the mortgage, such mort
| gagee will not be protected as against the guard
| ian of the insane person. who, in the suit to
] foreclose sought to have the deed set aside.
The deed was voidable because the grantor was
| of unsound mind as against the mortgage. l3.1
| An exception to a conclusion of law should be
made at the time the decision is made, and il
taken subsequently, although without objection
| from the other party. is not sufficient
| 1861, Theresa q. Vinton vs.. Builders an6
| Manufacturers' Association ct al. Marion S. G
| Rehearing denied.
| 1918. GUSTS Roby VS.. Chas. L. Piper ct al
| Harrison c. G. Rehearing denied.